Javanshir
Feyziyev Eyyub

National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Institute of Philosophy

Abstract:

The paper is dedicated in depth to the
exploration of the Eurasianism and the neo-Eurasianism formed in its
ideological basis. Works of Russian ideologists representing the Eurasianism idea,
such as Danilevsky, Trubetskoy, Lamansky, Savitsky, Panarin and Dugin are
critically analyzed. Russian Eurasianism is identified as a doctrine trying to
prove the Eurasian hegemony of Russia and a politico-ideological system of
Russian fundamentalism. It is implied that Eurasianism platform has been
unilateral from its initial emergence striving for justifying the imperial
politics of Russia and had not been able to escape from its partiality.
However, Russia as a Eurasian state could gain an opportunity of favorable
participation in the process of partnership among states in this region by
relinquishing its claims to be an absolute dominant power both of Europe in
Europe and Asia in Asia.

The
victory of the Russians in the Great Northern War and fragmentation of the
Golden Horde in the south at the beginning of the XVIII century turned the
Eurasia into the massive arena of battle. Announcing itself a state of empire
in 1721, Russia took advantage of the weakening of Turkic states and empires in
all spheres. After capturing all the strategic flanks along the Black and
Caspian Seas, the Russian Empire enlarged towards Iran and China "through” the
Caucasus and the Central Asia respectively. In 1905 the territory of the
Russian Empire had already been reaching the largest scale in the history
following the Turkish-Mongolian and British Empires. Its territory of 22.5
million square meters was lying across the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea in the
north, the Baltic Sea - in the west and the Pacific Ocean in the east. This
historic process that overlapped with the weakening of Turks and consolidation
of Russians during the historical and geopolitical transformations occurring in
Eurasia at that time didn’t change the geopolitical balance in favor of Turks
and all Asians but changed in favor of Russians. Russia becoming a dominating
empire of Eurasia captured not only a large proportion of this continent
excluding Turkey but also put an end to the independence of Turkic states
located in captured territories by moving Russian nationals to those
territories in order them to dominate. Later, change in the political and ideological
system of Russia - establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republics made this
state known in the Eurasia even in the whole world as a superpower. Moreover,
one of the giant poles of the international bipolar system was formed by this
particular unitary state.

During
its seventy-year existence, the Soviet Union wasn’t able to maintain the
balance of "dinosaur vastitude” and collapsed due to the fundamental mistakes
made in its domestic, as well as international policies. When the Soviet Union
collapsed five of the fourteen republics seceded from it were Turkic states.
Containing great traditions of statehood, these republics started nation-
building process rapidly and assertively. With the dissolution of the USSR
necessity to reform the Eurasian geopolitics on more rational basis had
occurred. In such historical period, the eurasianism, which played a great role
in the formation of the Russian Empire and was one of the political and
ideological pillars of it, started reappearing in the Russian Federation that
never broke off the royal pretensions. However, regardless how hard the
neo-eurasianism tries to reappear in a new shape it actually doesn’t differ
from the classical eurasianism.

Classical
eurasianism - is a doctrine trying to corroborate the Eurasian hegemony of
Russia. Russian eurasianism is a political and ideological system of Russian
fundamentalism. Particularly, the eurasianism settled on Pan-Slavism and
Slavophilism frameworks, and later deepened on philosophical and culturological
perspectives, worked very hard to eliminate contradictions in the Russian Empire’s
policy regarding the Europe and Asia, fix the "crack” in the dichotomy of
Europe-oriented and Asia-oriented Russian society, and finally to corroborate
its position on Russia’s being more an Asian state rather than a European. It
also caused continuous discussions being even on the agenda currently.
Consequently, the eurasianism arose in the whirlwind of discordance of opinion
had contradictory and challenging evolution as the history of this empire.

Reviewing
the process of formation of the Russian Empire the prominent Russian
philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev links the so-called "ambivalence” of Russia ever
hesitating between Europe and Asia, to the "dualism” which is very distinctive
to the Russians and had appeared as a manifestation of these characteristics in
the reforms of the Peter the First [Berdyayev, 2011, p.18]. Peter Chaadayev
trying to clarify Russia’s "self-seeking” wrote in 1829: "We do not belong to
any great families of the mankind. We are neither East nor West. We do not own
any of their traditions either” [Chaadayev, 1989, p.508]. At the last quarter
of the XIX century when the Russian Empire became hegemonic, Fyodor
Dostoyevsky, a great Russian thinker had joined the debates on Russian identity
with a strongly-worded thought: "We are Tatars in Europe and Europeans in the
Asia” [Dostoevskiy N, 2008, pg.509]. This particular acknowledgment proves that
the ethnos "Tatar” (called by Europeans following the name from Slavic
nations), etc. Turks were perceived as
the essence of Eurasia. Therefore, starting from the second half of the XIX century,
Russian intellectuals and ideologists were thinking that this empire that was
facing the dilemma of acknowledging itself as a European or Asian state,
eventually should have to put the "Eurasian dress” on "shaped” properly to its
geopolitical "status”.

Later, as
Vladimir Ilich Lenin ironically stated "Russia wearing the old hats thrown by
Europe” was, in fact, longing to become a Europe-oriented state since the times
of the Peter the First, as well as trying to imitate the Europe in all manners
– from political to cultural. Pursuant to the process of Russia’s growing into
a hegemonic state while the ideological battle between Russian westernism and
easternism, certainly Russia’s self-assertion was gradually prioritizing the
easternism (asianism) due to the geopolitical "weightiness”. Based on the
originality of the Slavic world, the Pan-Slavists, in general, were inclined to
the position of denial of Europe. In his work "Russia and Europe”, 1862, Nikolay
Danilevsky author of a specific theory of Pan-Slavism, was trying to justify
the necessity for Russia to view the relations with Europe from a new paradigm.
Nikolay Danilevsky was identifying "the Europeanism as the illness of Russian
life” and was considering the "struggle with the west as the only way of
salvation” [Danilevskiy, 2008, p. 323, 529]. Danilevsky was admitting that
"Europe belongs to Aryan nations, but Asia to Semitic, Turan (Turkic) etc.
nations”. [Danilevskiy, 2008, p.370]. The author was also informing that in
fact, the Europe considered Slavonians as its enemies, not Muslims and Turks,
and the Europe constantly attempted to embroil Turkey, the leader of the Turkic
world with Russia, the leader of the Slavic world [Danilevskiy, 2008, p-s. 400-401]. Finally, the main purpose of
Pan-Slavism that could be a basis for the idea of eurasianism was articulated
in N.Danilevsky’s views as follows: "… Seizure of Constantinople (Istanbul),
the center of Orthodoxy as well as the junction of great historical memories
could ensure Russia’s vast superiority over the entire Eastern countries.”
Calling Constantinople as "Tsargrad” (City of tsar) the Russian visionary was
describing it not only Russia’s but also "Common-Slavic Union’s capital”
[Danilevskiy, 2008, p-s.467-470].

To
resuscitate Byzantium, to make Constantinople (Istanbul) a center of Slovenian
world – were no doubt an absurd utopia as a revival of Roman Empire. The
imperialistic ideology in Russia reached such an immoderate bound in that period
that Russians were looking at Europe in the west and Turkic world in the east
and south as their competitors in their struggle to rule the entire world.

The
eurasianism, having decisively settled on this very position, approaches the
relationships with Asia with the new dimensions of Russian fundamentalism, in a
manner differing from its ideological predecessor’s – Pan-Slavism, and driven
by the Russia’s imperialistic geopolitics (necessity to bound to the east and
south). Vladimir Lamansky in his work "Three worlds of the Asia-Europe continent”,
published in 1892, for the first time, assessed Russia as a Eurasian state. In
addition, his position indicated that Europe and Asia are not two continents
divided by the Ural Mountains, in fact, it is comprised of Europe, Eurasia and
Asia: and Russia discovers its identity on this site that "connects these three
worlds”. Konstantin Leontyev, Vladimir Lamansky’s contemporary follower
analyzing further links the future of Russia, as a state, to Asia. His consideration
was that denial from Europe should be accepted by Russia as a foothold and
Russia must recognize the fact that "it belongs more to Turan world rather than
the Slavonian” [Laruelle, 2012, p.3]. Hence, "Turan world” was perceived in
Russian mentality as an area equal to Eurasia.

The more
systematic concept regarding the classical eurasianism was proposed by Duke
Nikolay Trubetskoy: "The history of Russia should be overviewed from the
East rather from the West" [Turbetskoy 2007]. He introduces Eurasia as an
area of custom civilization established by various nations inhabiting there. In
addition, he also points out that 700 years back "Genghis Khan, who was
not only the great conqueror but also the greatorganizer" already
laid the geopolitical foundation of what was ensuring the integrity of Eurasia:
"This modernstate called Russia or USSR inthis historical
perspective (the 1920s)is a part of the Great Turk-Mongol Empire
established by Genghis Khan... Russia's geographical territory coincides with
the core area of this empire. "Russian statehood within the territory of
Eurasia is also a heritor and successor of Genghis Khan's state"
"...like Duke of Moscow is a heritor of Golden Horde". Nikolay
Trubetskoy even reveals the genetic basis of this inheritance: "As the
Ugro-Finnic and all Slavic nations,the Turkic blood is running through
the veins of Russians. The fact thatour brothers(not due to the
language or religion, but due to the blood, character and culture)are not
only Slavonians but also Turaniansis usually disregarded"
[Turbetskoy, 2007, p.14, 15-17, 31-36]. According to the Russian ideologist,
the Eurasian state of Russia will find its historical self only when it
conceives it is heritor and successor of great Genghis Khan! The aim is
evident: in an effort to become hegemonic in Eurasia, Russia even claims its
"blood brotherhood" with Turks whose territories it occupied, to
neutralize the challenges regarding the "Turkish component" of
Russian Empire.

Since
1917 - soon after the Russian Empire collapsed and the Soviet Union was
established, the eurasianism was developed as a specific political and
ideological framework within the movement of Russian emigrants: in 1932, the
Eurasian party was established overseas. Peter Savitsky, one of
theorganizers of this party elaborated theeurasianism theoretically
and developed its political platform. Remaining loyal to the ideas of
eurasianism until the end of his life,Peter Savitsky, along with
improving the Eurasian version of Russian geopolitics, shifted the eurasianism
movement from a theoretical surface to the surface of practical activities.
Similar to his ideological predecessors, Savitsky also ties Russia's destiny
with Asia and considers that "continental sense" of Russian ethnos
owned from Asians stipulates its domination in Eurasia [Savitskiy, 1997,
p.155].

Doubtless,
no conditions for visibility of eurasianism existed during the soviet period
since the Soviet Union was officially following the communist ideology. It
could only occur, in the best case, "between the lines" of certain
ideas. Regardless thefact, the "concealed" expansion policy
persisted by the SovietUnion was more pretentious and widespread than
eurasianism. The idea of eurasianism commenced recovering in an openly and
doctrinal manner only after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This tendency
is called "neo-eurasianism" [Laruelle, 2012, p-s.3-6] in the theoretical
and analytical literature. The complex of new qualities of neo-eurasianism,
which does not substantially differs from the classical eurasianism means it
has outlined itself pursuant to the political realities of the modern era.
However, more serious and dangerous difference occurs while comparing the
historical situations: Nowadays, Russia, that "lets allied republics slip
through its fingers”, was not able to endure this "loss" and, for the
first time in its history, initiates to bring the idea of eurasianismto
the center ofnational policythat earlier was only going around this
policy.

As of
today, eurasianism process is developing in four evidently linked with each
other directions: (1) in the scientific and theoretical, humanitarian and
culturological concepts; (2) in thestandingsof public and political
movements; (3) in the ideological platforms of political parties; (4) within
the principal peripheries of Putin's national policy.

Challenges
faced by the Russian state on the ways to keep and develop its geopolitical
power within the progressive historical and political realities are introduced
as a fundamental problem that "modern" eurasianists arefocused
on.

Alexander
Sergeyevich Panarin, head of the Social and Philosophical Researches Center
within the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Science of the Russian
Federation, introduces the Russian "Eurasianism" as an alternative
and global idea versus the Western "Atlanticism" in his works such as
"Russia in the cycles of world history", "Global political
prognostication", and "Temptation by globalism"
[Panarin;2000a,b,c]. The aim of introducing the issue in this manner is to
justify the intentions of the current Russian state, inheritor of Russian
Empire and USSR, to become a dominant political power again first in Eurasia
and then in the whole planet. Panarin admits that "Russia is getting destructed"
[Panarin, 2000, p.78]and talks with a sophistic logic from an unreal
perspective for Russia. He explains the processes establishing frameworks for
Russia's returned revenge as follows: "We are observing rivalry of Eurasia
project: northern project (Russia), Muslim project (re Pan-Turkism intentions)
and Chinese project (re-revival of Great Silk Way). Last two projects were
thought out as an attempt tolinkAtlantic and Pacific oceans
avoiding Russia... The characteristic point is that both projects are oriented
to the Caspian open oil resources [Panarin. 2000, p.163]. According to the
author's points of view, if just the first - Eurasian "Russian
project" was able to manage the processes, it would have all the chances
to win. Panarin's version of "neo-eurasianism" seems to seek an ally
for Russia "that was left alone in the desert." Although he was
predicting the upraise of the new global alliances due to his state's
dominance, [Panarin, p.1999], it becomes clearly visible every day how far it
is from the political pragmatics:the fact is that stronger areas of
interest that are not balanced with the "Russian project" of the global
rivalry in are being formed in the Eurasian arena.

Componentization
of eurasianism within the ideological platform of the political parties clearly
illustrates that these parties are instrumenting this ideology to gain
popularity among the conservative class of the Russian society, particularly
the USSR-biased communists and the nationalists supporting radicalization of Russia's
super statehood policy, as well as the cosmopolitans impersonatingthe universalistimage
of poly-ethnic Russia.

Alexander
Dugin, who introduced the eurasianism to theattention of public and
political movements in Russia, sets forth the "main principles of
doctrinal Eurasia platform" in his book "Eurasian View". In
general, Alexander Dugin's (currently a member of the Expert Council at the
Russian Federation’s State Duma) public and political activities are focused on
restoring the Russia’s "Eurasian super state” status within the Russia’s
integration into the former soviet republics. This particular book is comprised
of the main provisions of the Action Plan of the All-Russian Political and
Public Movement "Eurasia”. The core paradigm of the platform is suggested
byAlexander Dugin, the ideologist of neo-eurasianism could briefly be designed
as follows: neo-eurasianism is getting formed based on the ideology of the
classical Eurasianism. The fundamental thesis of the classical eurasianism is
that "the west is against the mankind" [Dugin, 2002, p.6]. For this
particular reason, none of the nations and states imitating the West was able
to determine its own policy. They always were in leading stringsof the
Westand underitsinfluence. Russia experienced the similar
situation as well - the western oriented policy triggered its regression and
loss of everything gained. "The crisis of idea in modern Russia"
originates exactly from it. Nowadays, the westernism appears in the model of
theglobalism. Due to this reason, a resistance against this threat exists
worldwide: according to the author, there is only one source of a mindset that
can be an alternative to the unipolar world model in the form of globalism and
it is Eurasianism. Priorities of the eurasianism movement are to
"establish the Eurasian Union" on the basis of CIS by strengthening
the idea of "Eurasia federalism" and to materialize "the axis of
ally states" by extending strategic integration of CIS' internal space in
the direction of Moscow-Tehran-Delhi-Beijing[Dugin, 2002, p-s.14-15]. As
it happened in the past, today the "Veliko-Russians" are capable of
guaranteeing "formation of a single nation" undera unique
circumstance manifested from the "intersection" of Slavonians, Turks
and Finno-Ugric ethnos. Confident in its significance, the eurasianism, which
may become "a consolidated core of the extended spectrum of mindset, philosophy,
geopolitical project, economic theory, moral movement and political
forces", announces - "Eurasia is a planet" [Dugin, 2002, p-s.
34-35].

However,
in his "project" Alexander Dugin goes backwards from the Russian
Empire, Soviet Union and CIS practice and views that the "Eurasian
Union" is supposed to originate in Eurasia, not within the ally of the
sovereign states, but within the current Russian Federation's formation - in
the form of the unitary state merged on the federal basis [Dugin, 2002,
p.62-69]. Dugin introduces his "Common Eurasian Home" project with a
certainty of an idealist and invites other Asian states - Mongolia, China,
Japan, Iran, Afghanistan and India to join this "union" [Dugin, 2002,
pgs.70-76]. Mr. Dugin, who wholeheartedly believes in "universal
importance" of his job, decides to place Charter of the All-Russian
Political and Public Movement "Eurasia” in the last pages of his books
with an intention Eurasians would read the Charter and become a member of this
organization. It is not acoincidence that in thepantheonof
these beliefs, the Russianideologist "adjusts" the tendencies
of eurasianism in his country with the state policy: the author states
"Eurasianists hopefully accept the President Putin's policy on
strengthening the Russian statehood and on reviving the geopolitical power of
the Russian government" [Dugin, 2002, p.88].

The
eurasianism is already a political policy pursued in the Russian Federation on
the level of the public policy: Russia being not satisfied with the
Commonwealth of Independent States isn’t very likely to rely on this formal
union very much and, in addition, not very sure about its perspectives, has
seriously started working on the realization of "Eurasian Union” idea . On
November 12, 2011, Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan signed the Declaration on
the establishment of Eurasian Union (EAU), and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
approved their candidacy to membership. The Eurasian Union should be structured
based on the phases of integration similar to the Free Trade Zone, Eurasian
Economic Union, Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Community etc. This
Union looks quite "attractive”: the architects of the project think that if the
idea is materialized, the territory of the Eurasian Union will be the largest
in the world – 20,030,748 square kilometers, population – the seventh with
169,315,689 people, gross domestic product (GDP) – the sixth with 2.720
trillion USD. According to the authors of the project, "post soviets states
(?!) having announced their independence”, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Trans-Dniester or Nagorno-Karabakh Republics (1) can be admitted to the membership
of the Eurasian Union. However, the Russian ideologists miss that it is a
serious act of violation of the international law to provoke a piece of land
belonging to the sovereign UN member state, which has undergone separatism, to
join the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian
Union is intended to be a confederative union of sovereign states allied under
the joint – political, economic, military, and customs expansion. It is clearly
articulated here that the process of conversion "of the Soviet Union into the
Eurasian Union and of the communist ideology into Eurasian ideology”
necessitates the establishment of the Union of this kind. The state-level
architects of the Eurasian Union project are Vladimir Putin, President of
Russia, and Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan. The Declaration on
the establishment of the Eurasian Union (EUA) was signed within 40 days after
Putin’s article "The new integration project for Eurasia – the future which is
born today” was published in the fall of 2011 when Putin yet was the Russian
prime minister. Vladimir Putin, head of the Russian state believes that a power
"capable of representing one of the poles of the modern world” would be formed
following the establishment of this Union, which would be a historical step forward
in the geopolitics of Eurasia. The Eurasian Union, absolute establishment of
which was planned to be completed prior to 2015 ("supranational” Eurasian
Parliament supposed to inaugurate by this time), in the successive stages – in
more extended and global integration plan , would grow into "Greater Eurasian
Union” embracing China, India, Iran and even European countries!.. Will the
modern international policy really allow Russia’s worldwide hegemony centered
at such pretenses?!

Apparently,
while having a general review over the opinions and approaches of the Russian
ideologists speaking for classic and new eurasianism such as Nikolay
Trubetskoy, Vladimir Lamansky, Konstantin Leontyev, Peter Savitsky, Alexander
Panarin, Alexander Dugin, as well as, the architects of the Eurasian Union
project, it becomes obvious that neo-eurasianism platform that tries to justify
Russia’s imperialistic policy, like the orthodox eurasianism, wasn’t able to
get rid of evident delusions, extremity and de-constructiveness. Even the most
skillful sophistry would not be able to conceal these shortcomings since the
eurasianism, which became a doctrine of imperialistic ideology – is the
continuance of the politics granting Russia an explicit predominance over the
Eurasian nations primarily.

Initially, the Eurasianists anticipated the
truth – the position they enthusiastically were defending would not be accepted
in Eurasia. The reason is that Russia has always demonstrated unfairness
towards not only the other nations, as well as the Slavonians who share the
same roots with them but Russia hindered their independence and development.
Russia even continually attempted to suppress Ukraine and Poland who own great
traditions of statehood. Consequently, Russian Pan-Slavism has always remained
as a dream. Russian Empire has permanently used both Pan-Slavism and
eurasianism as an ideological tool.

The
attitude of the Western European part of Eurasia towards Russia is the
manifestation of the position of higher civilization. The west cannot find any
rationale to equate Russia and itself or doesn’t really wish to find it. The
eastern part of the Eurasia (mainly the Central Asia) is not willing to get
easily digested inside the abdomen of Russia. Therefore, the Asian opposition
to Russia was and will be as severe as the European opposition. Consequently,
Russia being pushed by both Europe and Asia always generates hesitancy and
confusion in Russia’s geopolitics and geo-civilization. Witnessing the
irritated pushback from Europe, a more packed and compacted area, the Russian
Eurasianist intellectuals cannot find another remedy than strengthening within
a rarer and looser Asia. The eurasianists, reluctantly coming back from Europe
and finding a shelter in Asia, are dragging the geopolitical support towards
the Asia. However, in fact, what they witnessed was that the part of Asia that
is closer to them is the residence of Turkic civilization- those Turks who for
many centuries (mostly during the Golden Horde period) established states in
Slavonian lands and who actively took part in the development of ethno-genesis.
Thus, the eurasianists nearly equalize the Turkic world with the Asian one.
They are very well aware of the truth that to conquer the Turkic world means to
conquer the Asian world [Laruelle, 2012, p-s.171-201; 202-204]. Indeed, the
true authors of Eurasia’s geopolitical history are Turks.

The peak
of the Eurasian domination of Russia lasted from the end of the World War II to
the 80s (around 40 years): it changed the political regime of European
countries where it could create "satellite countries" for itself, it
even was able to split a giant state like Germany into two parts. It yet moved
forward over the Kuril Islands hit by the waters of the Pacific and abutted the
costs of Japan. It involved a number of Far East countries of Asia (or part of
some of them) including China, into its "socialist camp” like it happened with
Eastern Europe. Therefore, the USSR, a dictatorship at the bottom, became a
dominating state of one of the poles in the bipolar world model. As a result,
disintegration processes started happening upon collapse of this state, which
could not "incubate” a rational practice except applying the violent political
policy resembling the "reforms of the Peter the First” to the international
life: the republics forcibly allied under the Soviet Union, as well as the
countries representing "the loyal socialist camp” assertively departed from it
and joined the process of world building required long ago by the historical
and political logics.

The times have changed: nowadays it is not
possible to persuade and entice independent states, as well as sovereign Turkic
republics in Eurasia into the Eurasian Union by any means. Furthermore, Russia is
not as powerful as before to forcibly perform this action. In his researches
("Post-Imperium. A Eurasian story”, "The End of Eurasia: Russia on the border
between geopolitics and globalization”) dedicated to Russia’s real role in the
modern international life, Dmitry Trenin, Russian political analyst, director
of Moscow Carnegie Center describes ineffective prospects of Russia’s
neo-expansionist policy distinctly and credibly: "Twenty-first century: Russia
is strikingly different from the Russia of old. The collapse of communism
ushered in an era free of ideologies and values… With its five-hundred-year-old
(I think three hundred-year-old, JF) empire a piece of history and its
superpower ambitions put to rest, Russia is now looking inward rather than outward
[Trenin, 2011, p. 9]. It is impossible Russia becomes an empire again since the
international political environment "prepares the national states and confides
in them” [Trenin, p.13]. Analyzing the historical realities of Eurasian
geopolitics and current situation Dmitry Trenin concludes that the
eurasianists, who were eager to "Russify” this land, did not take the right
approach from the very initial period:
they have definitely made a historical mistake by concentrating from
Europe to Asia on the absolute denial road. Meanwhile, "Russia is primarily not
an Asian but a European country.” For this reason, Russia’s European prospects
would provide it with more convenient opportunities: it would become a part of
the Western civilization. On the contrary, Russia was lost in endless Asian
lands and could not find a way to discover itself. In current historical circumstances,
"Russia’s role in establishing a center of attraction has come to an end.”
"Eurasianism is dead and it is no longer capable of strengthening Russia’s
standpoint either in Europe or in Asia” [Trenin 2001, pgs.94-99, 138-147].

Doubtlessly,
Russia’s new revenge in the post-empire politics may initiate more drastic consequences:
it is either moderate or coercive manipulation would distance the states that
had already experienced the most important, challenging and crucial stages of
independence. Russia’s continuing aggressiveness due to these "losses” might
turn it into the "large-scale” and "rabid” North Korea. Ultimately, inevitable
disintegration processes might commence inwards – this time in its new phase.

Here is
the reason why Russia should not sway from "Slavonian Union” to "Eurasian
Union” by deceiving itself with the illusions of "neo-eurasianism”. In any
case, Russia remains, as the largest state in the world by area and it has no
need to extend its territories by "new unions” or "federations”. It already has
a number of unresolved problems within its huge territory. Therefore, Russia should end its ambitions to
dominate over Europe in Europe and Asia in Asia since it is obvious in advance
that none of the European or Asian states would agree with these pretenses.
Modern Russia, after all, should implement its mission within the process of
cooperation of normal transnational relations and should make its contributions
to the development of this cooperation.